Order.- This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned. Sessions Judge of North Arcot Division at Vellore preferring a complaint against the petitioners for having given false evidence in S.C. No. 19 of 1965. The petitioners were witnesses in a case of murder tried by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Judge found that the petitioners have deliberately given false evidence and while delivering judgment acquitting the accused he observed that necessary action might be taken against the petitioners, P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and 7, who had perjured before him. Subsequently, a petition was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellore, praying for the prosecution of the witnesses for perjury. Notice was given to the petitioners on this application. The petitioners contended before the learned Sessions Judge that the petition was not maintainable as a definite finding was not given in the judgment at the time of its pronouncement as required under section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge negatived the contention of the petitioners and ordered institution of complaint against the petitioners for perjury. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterates the same contention raised before the learned Sessions Judge that the requirements under section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with while sanctioning the prosecution and that the order of the Court below is illegal. There is force in this contention. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterates the same contention raised before the learned Sessions Judge that the requirements under section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with while sanctioning the prosecution and that the order of the Court below is illegal. There is force in this contention. Section 479-A (1) so far as it is material to the present case, is in these terms: “ When any..........criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceedings..........and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury........and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof.” It is very clear from the provisions of this sub-section that the Court intending to make a complaint is required to record a finding at the time of delivering the judgment that in its opinion a person appearing as a witness has intentionally given false evidence and that for the eradication of evil of perjury and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such a witness should be prosecuted for the offence. This provision is mandatory. Even if the Court finds that a person has deliberately given false evidence, it will not be a sufficient compliance of section 479-A unless it also finds that a prosecution is necessary for the purpose of eradicating the evil of perjury and that it is expedient in the interests of justice. It may be in certain cases a Court may not sanction prosecution for perjury if it finds after applying its mind to the various circumstances available before it that it is not expedient. In Dr. Pal Chaudhry v. State of Assam1, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of a finding as required under section 479-A (1) the order of sanctioning the prosecution cannot be allowed to stand. In Dr. Pal Chaudhry v. State of Assam1, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of a finding as required under section 479-A (1) the order of sanctioning the prosecution cannot be allowed to stand. The learned Sessions Judge in this case has of course found that the petitioners have deliberately given false evidence, but he has not given a finding that the prosecution of the petitioners for perjury was necessary for the eradication of the evils of perjury and that it was expedient in the interests of justice that the petitioners should be prosecuted. The order made by the learned Sessions Judge was in breach of the express provision of section 479-A (1). The result therefore is that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the revision is allowed. V.K. ----- Revision allowed.